Appendix H Sfu Geology Letter Report

Home , Burnaby Mountain

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, TMEP Westridge Tunnel Investigation November 26, 2014 2014 Site Investigation Data Report – FINAL Project No.: 0095-150-15

APPENDIX H SFU GEOLOGY LETTER REPORT

0095150-15 Site Investigation Data Report - FINAL.docx BGC ENGINEERING INC.

ENGINEERING GEOLOGY OF BURNABY MOUNTAIN

A preliminary report

John J. Clague PGeo Doug Stead PEng Allison Westin Mirko Francioni

Department of Earth Sciences Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6

November 7, 2014

Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 2

Introduction and summary At the request of BGC Engineering, we provide this interim report focusing on three issues: 1. Did Holocene faulting produced the landforms around Burnaby Mountain? 2. The role that landsliding played in producing the scarp on the north side of Burnaby Mountain 3. An estimate of the retrogression potential of the scarp With regard to the first issue, we have found no evidence of Holocene (active) faulting on Burnaby Mountain. The Eocene rocks that form Burnaby Mountain probably are faulted, but these faults are old structures with no evidence for recent offsets. This interpretation is qualified because we do not have, at this time, borehole logs that have been geotechnically logged. Large slumps produced the steep scarp north of the Simon Fraser University campus and Burnaby Mountain. The slumps are relict, and similar-scale landsliding is very unlikely to happen today. Accordingly, the possibility of significant retrogression of the head scarp is very low, and there is no possibility that retrogression would extend to the west to the proposed tunnel alignment.

Geologic setting Burnaby Mountain is developed in Eocene alluvial sandstone, conglomerate, and minor shale. It is a remnant of a larger structurally controlled basin fill that extends from the southern margin of the Coast Mountains on the north to south of Bellingham, Washington, on the south (Mustard and Rouse 1994). The Eocene sedimentary sequence conformably overlies Late Cretaceous marine sediments in Stanley Park. It crops out in building foundations in downtown Vancouver and Capitol Hill, and remnants of Miocene basalt sills and dykes that intrude are exposed at Sentinel Hill in West Vancouver, along the James Cunningham Seawall in Vancouver, in Queen Elizabeth Park in Vancouver, and at Grant Hill east of Maple Ridge (Hamilton and Dostal 1994).

During the Early Eocene, the Coast Mountains were uplifted and dissected by erosion. The products of this event were carried into a fault-controlled Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 3 subsiding basin by rivers flowing from the rising mountains. The Eocene sedimentary rocks were folded, faulted, and uplifted during the Neogene in response to convergence and subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate against North America.

What is now Metro Vancouver was covered by the southern margin of the Cordilleran ice sheet at least twice during the Pleistocene (the period from 2.6 million years ago to 11.6 thousand years ago). Southward- and southwestward-flowing ice deeply eroded the Cretaceous and Eocene fill in the Fraser Valley and Strait of Georgia, producing today’s landscape. Glaciers flowing from the Coast Mountains also greatly deepened and broadened Tertiary river valleys into the fiords and fiord lakes that presently indent the Coast Mountains, including Howe Sound, Indian Arm, Coquitlam Lake, and Harrison Lake (Clague 1994). Burrard Inlet may be part of this glacially overdeepened Tertiary river system. Glaciers also deposited thick sequences of non-lithified sediments, including till, glaciofluvial and deltaic sand and gravel, and glaciolacustrine silt. These sediments deeply bury bedrock over much of the Fraser Valley. During late-glacial (ca. 15-12 thousand years ago) and postglacial (12 thousand years ago to present) time, the Fraser River has built its floodplain and delta westward along an arm of the sea in the Fraser Valley into the Strait of Georgia. The delta continues to grow westward into the Strait of Georgia, although its channel is now confined by dykes, localizing deposition to the mouths of the North Arm and Middle and Main channels.

Tectonic environment The Neogene tectonic environment in southwestern British Columbia is controlled by (1) subduction of the Juan de Fuca plate beneath the west edge of North America, and (2) clockwise rotation of a sub-block of the North America plate around a Euler pole located in southern Idaho or eastern Washington. The former is responsible for giant earthquakes that occur, on average, once every 500 years (Clague 1997; Goldfinger et al. 2003), and the latter produces crustal compression, folding, and oblique thrust displacements along active faults in Puget Lowland (Fig. 1; Wells et al. 1998). The Coast Mountains act as a buttress to the rotating block to the south.

GPS velocities in northwest Washington State and southwest British Columbia suggest broad blocky plate movement, separated by closely Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 4 spaced, west- to west-northwest-trending active faults (McCaffrey et al. 2007). Using airborne LiDAR imagery, more than ten active faults have been mapped to just south of the International Boundary (Barnett et al. 2010), and one extends across the east end of Juan de Fuca Strait to near and possibly through Victoria. A 4-km fault scarp 35 km northeast of Bellingham in the North Fork Nooksack valley records three large earthquakes in the Holocene (Haugerud et al. 2005; Siedlecki and

Schermer 2007). These faults are probably capable of Mw 7 earthquakes. Although no similar faults have been identified in the Fraser Valley, their absence may be more apparent than real because airborne LiDAR images, on which their identification is based, is only now becoming available in this area.

Figure 1. Active faults in Puget Lowland (Kelsey et al. (2012). Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 5

Engineering Geology of Burnaby Mountain The maximum thickness of the Eocene sedimentary sequence on Burnaby Mountain is about 350 m. The Eocene sequence dips uniformly about 6o to the south. This dip gives the mountain its pronounced asymmetry, with a very steep scarp slope on the north and a gentle dip slope on the south (Fig. 2). The lowest exposed Eocene sedimentary rocks (although not the lowest rocks in the Eocene sequence) crop out in a 30-m-high exposure along Barnett Highway on the northwest side of the mountain. This exposure is dominated by conglomerate consisting of rounded to subrounded clasts of dominantly igneous lithologies. The conglomerate has a matrix of sand, granules, and pebbles. The exposure is stable in a near- vertical face, indicating moderate strength.

Most of the Eocene sequence above this basal exposure is covered by soil and colluvium; outcrops are few. However, the upper trail system on the steep, north side of Burnaby Mountain and north-draining gullies and ravines high on this slope exposure highly weathered intertonguing sandstone and minor pebbly conglomerate, shale, and coal. These rocks also have sufficient strength to support to steep (locally > 60o) slope on the north side of the mountain. The south slope of the mountain is inclined more gently (average = 6o) than the north slope. We found no outcrops of Eocene rocks at the surface. Rather the rocks are covered by a southward- thickening wedge of late Pleistocene till and glaciomarine sediments. (Armstrong 1990; Armstrong and Hicock, 1980, 1981). Alternating resistant and recessive rock layers are locally evident beneath the sediment cover on the slope slope in airborne LiDAR imagery.

Local faults Faults are “fracture(s) or zone(s) of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to those on the other side” (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Blunden (1971) inferred seven faults crossing Burrard Inlet from North Vancouver to Coal Harbour, two of which he thought showed vertical offsets of about 150 meters. Blunden (1971) concluded that the faults offset late-glacial and early Holocene sediments, and thus are ‘active’ [Note: An ‘active fault’, as the term is commonly used, is one that has slipped in the Holocene, which is the past 11,600 years. More recent work has called into question Blunden’s interpretation, both with regard to the presence of the faults he mapped and the evidence for recent displacements. While mapping in the western Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 6

Fraser Valley for the Geological Survey of Canada, Johnston (1923) suggested that oil flows along a fault in Burnaby, but no evidence has been found for this structure. Johnston also inferred that a fault extends in an easterly direction beneath Burrard Inlet based on the juxtaposition there of crystalline rocks of the Coast Plutonic Complex to the north and Eocene

Figure 2. Burnaby Mountain slope map. Note the asymmetry of the mountain, with very steep slopes on the north side and gentle slopes to the south.

rocks to the south (Fig. 3). This seems like a reasonable assumption given that the crystalline rocks, which are Late Cretaceous in age, formed at crustal depths of perhaps 10-20 km and the overlying cover rocks was completely stripped off during Tertiary time when the southern Coast Mountains were tectonically elevated. Given the amount of uplift required to elevate the crystalline rocks from deep in the crust to high above sea level, and the small amount of tilting of the Eocene sequence beneath Capitol Hill and Burnaby Mountain, it seems likely that uplift was Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 7 localized on one or more faults beneath Burrard Inlet. Crampton (1975) identified four major dip-slip normal faults crossing Mount Burnaby based

Figure 3. Inferred fault along Burrard Inlet based on adjacent rock units of different age (Johnston 1923).

Figure 4. Four purported faults beneath Burnaby Mountain, highlighted in green on the map (Crampton 1975).

Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 8 on stream and gully orientations: two on the west with dips to the west, and two to the east with dips to the east (Fig. 4). One of the faults is purported to follow the ravine below Centennial Pavilion, with a 6-m offset on its eastern branch. Crampton (1975) also described faults beneath Simon Fraser University’s Bennett library and Centennial Pavilion. Again, there is no convincing field evidence for these structures, and a north-south orientation for major faults in this area seems inconsistent with the pattern of tectonic stress that exists today and has existed in the late Cenozoic time.

No faults can be seen on the LiDAR imagery. Nevertheless, the conspicuous south-southwest-trending gully that indents the north scarp in Burnaby Mountain Park is geomorphically unusual and may have formed by erosion along an old fault. In addition, the northern escarpment has a conspicuous rectilinear pattern, with alternating south-southwest- and west-northwest-trending sections that appear to be fault-controlled (Fig. 5). The Burrard Inlet shoreline has a similar rectilinear morphology, suggesting the presence of regional brittle fractures in the crust. There is, however no evidence that these structures are active today.

We also noted brittle fractures and faults with small (< 20 cm) offsets in sandstone and mudstone outcrops on the north side of Burnaby Mountain. It is unclear, however, if these structures are a product of tectonic faulting or mass movement.

Landslides Large slumps have occurred on the north side of Burnaby Mountain and have produced the steep scarp north of the SFU campus and Burnaby Mountain Park (Figures 6, 7, and 8). The slumps are manifested by large, backward-tilted blocks of Eocene sandstone and conglomerate south of Barnett Highway and north of the Simon Fraser University campus. Much of the original displaced rock is buried by colluvial fans underlain by diamicton, gravel, and sand up to several tens of metres thick. The fans have formed by small and medium-size debris flows that track down the steep gullies and ravines on the steep north slope of the mountain and come to rest on the gentle slope below. We have no way of dating the slumps but, in view of the size of the colluvial fans that cover the slumped blocks, the failures certainly occurred many thousands of years ago. It seems likely that they happened during or shortly after terminal Pleistocene deglaciation (ca. 14 thousand years ago), when the steep north Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 9 slope of Burnaby Mountain was debuttressed and when groundwater conditions in the slope were very different from those of today. Because the large slumps at the foot of Burnaby Mountain are relict and are very unlikely to occur today, the possibility of significant retrogression of the headscarp appears extremely low. Even should such an event happen, retrogression would not extend west to the alignment of the proposed pipeline tunnel.

Figure 5. Rectilinear pattern of scarp on the north side of Burnaby Mountain (red lines) and the adjacent Burrard Inlet shoreline (blue lines). Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 10

Figure 6. 3D perspective view of Burnaby Mountain, showing the landslide blocks on the north side of the mountain.

Figure 7. LiDAR image of the north side of Burnaby Mountain showing scarp (red line), slump blocks (blue), and colluvial fans (green) discussed in the report. Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 11

Figure 8. Close-up of the westernmost slump blocks on the north flank of Burnaby Mountain; arrows indicate inferred direction of movement.

References

Armstrong, J.E. 1990. Vancouver Geology. Geological Association of Canada, Cordilleran Section, Vancouver, BC, 128 p.

Armstrong, J.E. and Hicock, S R. 1980. Surficial Geology, New Westminster, West of Sixth Meridian, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, "A" Series Map 1484A, scale 1:50,000.

Armstrong, J.E. and Hicock, S.R. 1981. Surficial Geology, Vancouver, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Map 1486A, scale 1:50,000.

Barnett, E.A., Haugerud, R.A., Sherrod, B.L., Weaver, C., Pratt, T.L,. and Blakely, R.J. 2010. Preliminary Atlas of Active Shallow Tectonic Deformation in the Puget Lowland, Washington. Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1149, 32 p., 14 maps [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1149/]].

Blunden, R.H. 1971. Vancouver’s Downtown (Coal) Peninsula – Urban Geology. B.Sc. thesis, University of British Columbia, Department of Geology, Vancouver, BC, 53 p.

Bryant, W.A. and Hart, E.W. 2007. Fault-rupture hazard zones in California— Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to earthquake fault zone Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 12 maps. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42.

Clague, J.J. 1994. Quaternary stratigraphy and history of south-coastal British Columbia. In Geology and Geological Hazards of the Vancouver Region, Southwestern British Columbia. Edited by J.W.H. Monger; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 481, p. 181-192.

Clague, J.J. 1997. Evidence for large earthquakes at the Cascadia subduction zone. Reviews of Geophysics 35: 439-460.

Crampton, C.B. 1975. Natural Science Studies of Burnaby and Belcarra Mountains. Simon Fraser University, Department of Geography, Discussion Paper No. 8.

Goldfinger, C., Nelson, C.H., and Johnson, J.E. 2003. Holocene earthquake records from the Cascadia subduction zone and northern San Andreas Fault based on precise dating of offshore turbidites. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 31(1): 555-577.

Hamilton, T.S. and Dostal, J., 1994. Middle Tertiary eruptive rocks in the Vancouver area. In Geology and Geological Hazards of the Vancouver Region, Southwestern British Columbia. Edited by J.W.H. Monger; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 481, p. 171-179.

Haugerud, R.A., Sherrod, B.L., Wells, R.E., and Hyatt, T. 2005. Holocene displacement on the Boulder Creek Fault near Bellingham, WA and implications for kinematics of deformation of the Cascadia Forearc. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 37: 476.

Johnston, W.A. 1923. Geology of the Fraser River Map Area. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 135, 87 p.

Kelsey, H.M., Sherrod, B.L., Blakely, R.J. and Haugerud, R.A. 2012. Holocene faulting in the Bellingham forearc basin: Upper-plate deformation at the northern end of the Cascadia subduction zone. Journal of Geophysical Research 117.

McCaffrey, R.A., Qamar, I., King, R.W., Wells, R., Khazaradze, G., Williams, C.A., Stevens, C.W., Vollick, J.J., and Zwick, P.C. 2007. Fault locking, block rotation and crustal deformation in the Pacific Northwest. Geophysics Journal International 169(3): 1315–1340.

Mustard, P.S. and Rouse, G.E. 1994. Stratigraphy and evolution of Tertiary Georgia Basin and subjacent Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, southwestern British Columbia and northwestern Washington State. In Geology and Geological Burnaby Mountain, A Preliminary Report 13

Hazards of the Vancouver Region, Southwestern British Columbia. Edited by J.W.H. Monger; Geological Survey of Canada, Bulletin 481, p. 97-169.

Siedlecki, E.M. and Schermer, E.R. 2007. Paleoseismology of the Boulder Creek fault, Kendall, WA. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 39: 26.

Wells, R.E., Weaver, C.S., and Blakely, R.J. 1998. Forarc migration in Cascadia and its neotectonic significance. Geology 26, 759-763.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, TMEP Westridge Tunnel Investigation November 26, 2014 2014 Site Investigation Data Report – FINAL Project No.: 0095-150-15

APPENDIX I WATERLINE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

0095150-15 Site Investigation Data Report - FINAL.docx BGC ENGINEERING INC. 2301 McCullough Road, Unit D Nanaimo, British Columbia Canada V9S 4M9 Tel: 250.585.0800 Fax: 250.585.0802 Toll Free: 1.888.641.6795 www.waterlineresources.com

November 18, 2014 2137-14-004

Transmountain Pipeline ULC Suite 2700, 300 5th Avenue SW Calgary, AB, T2P 5J2

Attention: Bill Nooyen, P.Eng.

Dear Mr. Nooyen,

RE: TMEP – Burnaby Terminal HMM-BH-03 Groundwater Sampling

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Waterline Resources Inc. (Waterline) was retained by TERA Environmental Consultants (TERA) on behalf of Transmountain Pipeline ULC to conduct gas and groundwater sampling from a piezometer installed by BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) in borehole HMM-BH-03 at the Burnaby Terminal Facility (Burnaby Terminal). This is part of an ongoing investigation into the environmental site conditions at Burnaby Mountain along the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) corridor.

From September 11 to 20, 2014, BGC advanced borehole HMM-BH-03 to 182 m below ground level (mbgl) to investigate rock and fluid properties at/near the proposed portal of the TMEP trenchless route from Burnaby Terminal to Westridge Marine Terminal. The location of the borehole within the Burnaby Terminal is presented on Figure 1. The borehole was completed with a 2.54 cm (1 inch) piezometer installed to a depth of 113 m (Appendix A). The borehole below the piezometer was backfilled with sand, providing hydraulic communication between the deeper borehole and the shallower screened interval. The borehole above the screened interval was sealed to surface with grout to hydraulically isolate the shallow zones. The screened interval was completed in a conglomerate (Appendix A).

During drilling of borehole HMM-BH-03, seven water quality samples were obtained by BGC from the water used for drilling. Analytical results are provided in Appendix B and a comparison table is provided in Table B1. Descriptions of the samples are as follows (BGC Engineering Inc., 2014):

 BGC WS-1 (September 12, 2014): Collected from the clean water as delivered to the site.  BGC WS-2 to WS-6 (September 12 – 17, 2014): Collected from the recirculated drilling water. No additives or drilling mud was used during the drilling process

P:\2014 PROJECTS\2137-14 Tera Transmountain Pipeline Hydrogeological Support\004 BurnabyMountainInvestigation\Report\Source\2137-14-004-BurnabyMtnSampling- TechMemo_V2.docx TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 2 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

 BGC WS-7 (September 18, 2014): Collected from the recirculated drilling water after flushing of the borehole with clean water.

The present sampling program was conducted by Waterline to provide baseline groundwater quality information and to confirm the presence or absence of methane and hydrogen sulphide gas.

1.1 Waterline’s Scope of Work Waterline’s scope of work included:  Collect a gas sample from HMM-BH-03 using two methods: 1. Directly measure the headspace gas at the top of the well and immediately above the groundwater column in the well; and 2. Collect a water sample and submit for analysis of dissolved methane and hydrogen sulphide gases;  Collect a water sample for analysis of general chemistry, Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene and Xylenes (BTEX), Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH), Extractable Hydrocarbons (EPH), total and dissolved metals, total and dissolved phosphorous, total phenols and turbidity; and  Provide a technical memorandum summarizing the results of the field work, interpretation of analytical results, and an interpretation and comparison of analytical data from the water samples collected by BGC during drilling of HMM-BH-03.

2.0 SAMPLING METHODLOGY 2.1 Gas Sampling A portable RKI Eagle gas monitor was used to measure the headspace gas for methane and hydrogen sulphide in the piezometer on October 9, 2014. A copy of the calibration certificates are provided in Appendix C.

The piezometer cap was carefully lifted and the headspace gas at the top of the standpipe was collected into the gas monitor and measured for methane and hydrogen sulphide for approximately 5 minutes and the maximum concentration was recorded. The groundwater level was then measured and recorded at 55.27 metres below ground level (mbgl) (Table 1). A 6.35 mm (1/4 inch) diameter probe (HDPE tubing) was measured and cut to the appropriate length at ground surface and lowered into the piezometer to measure the head space gas immediately above the groundwater level. The head space was measured for approximately 5 minutes and the maximum concentration was recorded. The probe was removed and the cap was replaced on the piezometer for 30 minutes at which time the process was repeated.

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 3 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

Table 1: Water Level and Well Measurements Stick-up Water Level Depth Date and Time Well ID Northing Easting UTM (m) (mbgl) (mbgl) HMM-BH-03 5457797 504629 10 -0.25 55.27 113.6 9-Oct-2014 15:45

Notes: mbgl denotes metres below ground level

Photos showing the site and gas sampling equipment are included in Appendix D.

2.2 Groundwater Sampling To ensure a representative formation water sample was obtained and to remove the standing water in the piezometer, an attempt was made to purge the well of approximately 3 volumes of water and/or allow select water quality parameters (specifically electrical conductivity (EC), in addition to pH, total dissolved solids (TDS) and temperature) to stabilize. The non-pumping water level in HMM-BH-03 was recorded at 55.27 mbgl and the depth of the well was measured at 113.6 mbgl (Table 1), yielding a 58.3 m water column. In a 2.54 cm (1 inch) diameter well (0.5 L/m), one well volume equates approximately 30 L, resulting in an estimated purge volume of 90 L.

On October 9, 2014, an initial attempt was made to purge the groundwater manually using 15.9 mm (5/8 inch) diameter HDPE Waterra tubing attached with a one-way foot valve. However, because of the high sediment load in the water and depth of the well, the weight of the water was substantial and it was determined that a surface pump was necessary to complete the purging.

On October 10, 2014 a Waterra HydroLift II gas powered pump, which reportedly has water lifting capabilities from approximately 61 to 91 mbgl (200 to 300 feet), was sourced and used to pump the HDPE Waterra tubing from surface (refer to site photos in Appendix D). However, the water would not flow freely to the outlet of the tubing, possibly because of the high suspended sediment load that obstructed the operation of the foot valve, or friction effects in the small diameter casing that limited the valve action. Consequently, the tubing had to be pulled from the well, coiled and secured on a clean surface (polyethylene tarp) and then cleared of water using an air compressor. The purged water was contained in 20 L sealable pails. The tubing was then reinstalled into the well and the process was repeated.

Water quality parameters were measured in the field during groundwater purging (Table 2). After purging approximately 65 L, the water quality parameters had stabilized enough to sample (electrical conductivity measurements varied less than 5%); however because of time constraints and issues with the foot valve, sampling was postponed until the next day. The groundwater was sampled on October 11, 2014 by pulling the tubing out of the well and up a hill located directly east of BH-HMM-03. The foot valve was then removed and the groundwater was sampled from the outlet end of the tubing. The groundwater was field-filtered and preserved where applicable. Water samples were transported from the field to the laboratory in an insulated cooler and submitted for chemical analysis on October 11, 2014 under a chain of custody protocol to Maxxam Analytics.

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 4 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

Table 2: Water Quality Parameters Electrical TDS Purge Temperature Well ID Date Time pH Conductivity (ppm) Volume (°C) (µS/cm) (L) 10-Oct-2014 12:00 13.0 7.47 622 301 30 10-Oct-2014 16:00 13.9 7.82 581 291 50 HMM-BH-03 10-Oct-2014 16:15 13.9 8.26 606 301 65 11-Oct-2014 8:15 12.7 8.02 546 274 75

Groundwater level recovery occurred relatively quickly during groundwater purging, with water levels remaining above 56 mbgl. At the end of sampling on October 11, 2014, the water level in BH-HMM-03 was measured at 55.94 mbgl.

3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Gas Samples Methane concentrations were measured between 85 and 150 ppm in the headspace gas located at the top of the piezometer (0.25 mbgl), and between 120 and 310 ppm at a depth of 55.2 mbgs during the first and second measurements, respectively. Hydrogen sulphide was not detected and odours were not present. Table 3 provides details of the gas sampling results.

Table 3: Head Space Gas Sampling Results Hydrogen Depth of Depth of Methane Sulphide Well ID Date Groundwater Time Reading Concentration Concentration (mbgl) (mbgl) (ppm) (ppm) 15:45 0.25 85 0 HMM-BH- 9-Oct- 16:15 55.2 120 0 55.27 03 2014 16:46 0.25 150 0 16:52 55.2 310 0

Notes: mbgl denotes metres below ground level.

3.2 Water Samples Table B1 (Appendix B) summarizes the water quality results during drilling of HMM-BH-03 collected between September 12 to 18, 2014 (sample IDs: BGC WS-1 to -7), and compares the results with the sample collected by Waterline on October 11, 2014 (sample ID: Waterline WSW-8). Although the water from HMM-BH-03 is not used for drinking water purposes, the results are compared for reference to the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (CDWQG; Health Canada, 2014) Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC) and Aesthetic Objectives (AO), or, where applicable,

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 5 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc. the BC Contaminated Sites Regulation for Drinking Water (BC CSR; BC MoE, 2014). Water quality results can be summarized as follows:

 Numerous total metal concentrations are elevated above the MAC or AO guidelines in all of the samples collected, with the exception of BGC WSW-1, which was obtained from clean water as delivered. This indicates the total metal concentrations are influenced by the high particulate concentration in the water. Total metal concentrations are highest in the samples collected from the drilling fluids between September 12 and 15, 2014 (BGC WS-2 to -5);  TDS, EC and alkalinity are greater in the water sample collected post-drilling (Waterline WS-8);  Dissolved aluminum exceeds the AO guideline of 0.1 mg/L in all of the samples except BGC WSW-1;  Dissolved iron exceeds the AO guideline of 0.3 mg/L in BGC WS-6 and Waterline WS-8;  Dissolved metals and major dissolved ions including calcium, sodium, sulphate, chloride and bicarbonate are higher in the groundwater sample collected post-drilling (Waterline WSW-8);  Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH; C19-C32) were detected in all of the samples collected, including the sample collected from the clean water as delivered to the site (BGC WS-1);  Nitrate was detected in the samples collected from BGC, but its concentration was less than the MAC guideline of 10 mg/L;  Nitrite was detected in the sample collected post-drilling (Waterline WS-8), but its concentration was less than the MAC guideline of 1 mg/L;  Toluene was detected in the sample collected post-drilling (Waterline WS-8), but its concentration was less than the AO and MAC guidelines of 24 and 60 µg/L, respectively;  Chloroform was detected in the sample collected post-drilling (Waterline WS-8), but its concentration was less than the MAC guideline of 100 µg/L.

Water quality results have been plotted on a Piper diagram (Figure 2). The water chemistry data shows that the sample collected by Waterline on October 11, 2014 has a different geochemical signature than the water samples collected by BGC between September 12 and 18, 2104. The sample collected by Waterline has a sodium-sulphate type signature, whereas the samples collected from BGC primarily have a sodium- bicarbonate type signature.

The water samples obtained by Waterline on October 11, 2014 were also analyzed for methane and hydrogen sulphide gases. Results are shown on Table B1.

Hydrogen sulphide concentration was less than the reported detection limit of 0.0050 mg/L; however, methane gas was detected in the water sample. Methane concentrations were reported as 0.006 L/m3 which corresponds to a calculated methane concentration of 0.004 mg/L.

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 6 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

Certificates of Analysis and copies of the chain of custody records are provided in Appendix B.

4.0 DISCUSSION 4.1 Presence of Methane Gas and groundwater sampling at HMM-BH-03 indicate methane gas is present in the aquifer screen by the test well. Methane concentrations were greater in the head space immediately above the standing water in the well likely because the head space above the water was in equilibrium with the water. In addition, methane concentrations were greater during the second set of gas measurements because the head space and water column were disturbed during the first gas measurement, resulting in methane exsolving from the water into the air space above the water in the well.

The methane gas concentration in the air space of the well is compared to the dissolved methane concentration obtained from the lab using a form of Henry’s Law (USEPA, 2004):

∗⁄ ∗ where:

= aqueous gas concentration in water after equilibrium = molar concentration of water = 55.5 mol/L = partial pressure of the gas at atmospheric pressure = Henry’s Law constant = molecular weight of the analyte (g/mol)

The concentration of the gas immediately above the water surface in the well, which is considered the most likely to be in equilibrium with the water, ranged between 120 and 310 ppm. This translates to 0.000120 and 0.000310 atm at atmospheric pressure. Using a Henry’s Law constant of 39,769 atm/mol fraction (Mitchell, 2014) and molecular weight of methane (16 g/mol), the maximum partial pressure of 310 ppm yields a gas concentration of:

55.5 / ∗ 0.000310 ⁄ 39,769 /_ ∗ 16 / ∗ 10 / 0.0069 /

Alternatively, the minimum partial pressure of 120 ppm results in a dissolved gas concentration of 0.003 mg/L. This calculation assumes a sealed static system where the methane gas in the air is in equilibrium with that dissolved in the water and no losses from the system. This is not the case because the well is opened to allow sampling, thus it is possible that the methane gas concentration was actually greater than measured.

These values correspond to the laboratory derived dissolved gas concentration of 0.004 mg/L, especially considering the water sample submitted to the laboratory was subject to agitation of the

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 7 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc. water during sampling. This would likely have resulted in the exsolution of some methane to the atmosphere.

4.2 Baseline Groundwater Quality The groundwater sample collected by Waterline on October 11, 2014 indicates the samples collected by BGC during drilling were not representative of the groundwater at the site. The elevated TDS, EC, alkalinity and dissolved ions (particularly sulphate), indicates the groundwater has a different geochemical signature. The water samples collected by BGC are more representative of the fluids used during drilling, although mixing with the groundwater is likely to have occurred.

Although the BGC water samples cannot be used as a baseline data for the groundwater at the site, the samples are beneficial in that they indicate whether any cross contamination may have occurred during drilling. In this respect, low concentrations of EPH C19-C32 were detected in all of the samples collected, including the sample obtained from the clean water as delivered. The presence of coal noted during drilling by BGC at a number of depth intervals (BGC Engineering Inc., 2014), could account for the presence of EPH C19-C32; although not in the clean water sample. The groundwater sample collected by Waterline on October 11, 2014 also indicates low concentrations of toluene and chloroform were present, however, both are less than the BC CSR guidelines for drinking water.

Both the groundwater and drilling water samples were affected by the high level of particulates. As such, dissolved metals are a better indicator of water quality than total metals. The groundwater at the site was characterized by elevated dissolved aluminum and iron.

Low concentrations of nitrate were detected in the water samples collected by BGC. Low concentrations of nitrite were also detected in the groundwater sample collected by Waterline. Although nitrite concentrations were less than the MAC guideline of 1 mg/L, they were elevated above typical background concentrations of 0.01 mg/L (Health Canada, 2013a). Nitrite and nitrate can be formed as a result of nitrification of excess ammonia, which occurs naturally in groundwater from the decay of organic materials (Health Canada, 2013b). The presence of either nitrate or nitrite is dependent on the redox conditions of the environment. Borehole HMM-BH-03 is completed in a sedimentary environment that likely contains abundant organic materials, which would explain the presence of nitrate and nitrite. Reduction of organic matter is likely also the cause of methane gas within the groundwater.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS The enclosed report provides a review and evaluation of the gas and groundwater samples collected from HMM-BH-03 at the Burnaby Terminal between September 12 and October 11, 2014. The results indicate that dissolved methane is present within the aquifer screened by the test well,

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 8 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc. which is likely related to the presence of coal or the reduction of organic matter. Hydrogen Sulphide gas was not detected, either in the airspace of the well or in a dissolved phase in the water

Based on the conclusions of the groundwater assessment, methane gas concentrations should be monitored during construction and tunneling related activities. In addition, further sampling can be conducted to provide additional baseline water quality information and to monitor any changes during construction at Burnaby Mountain along the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) corridor.

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 9 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

6.0 CERTIFICATION This document was prepared under the direction of a professional geoscientist registered in the Province of British Columbia.

Waterline Resources Inc. trusts that the information provided in this document is sufficient for your requirements. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

Waterline Resources Inc. Reviewed By:

Jolene Hermanson, M.Sc., G.I.T. Steve Foley, M.Sc., P.Geo. Project Hydrogeologist Principal Hydrogeologist

David van Everdingen, Ph.D., P.Geo. Senior Hydrogeologist

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 10 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

7.0 REFERENCES BGC Engineering Inc., 2014. TMEP Westridge Tunnel Investigation: 2014 Site Investigation Data Report, November 2014.

British Columbia Ministry of Environment (BC MoE, 2014). Contaminated Sites Regulation, BC Reg 375/96.

Health Canada, 2103a. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Guideline Technical Document, Nitrate and Nitrite.

Health Canada, 2103b. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, Guideline Technical Document, Ammonia.

Health Canada, 2014. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality – Summary Table. Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal- Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the Environment. October, 2014.

Mitchell, T., 2014. RE: Methane Gas Calculation. [November 6, 2014 email].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2004). Standard Operation Procedure: Sample Preparation and Calculations for Dissolved Gas Analysis in Water Samples Using a GC Headspace Equilibration Technique. Document RSKSOP-175, Revision No. 2.

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Burnaby Terminal November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Page 11 Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc.

8.0 LIMITATIONS AND USE The information presented in this document was compiled exclusively for BGC Engineering Inc. (the Client) by Waterline Resources Inc. (Waterline). This work was completed in accordance with the scope of work for this project that was agreed between Waterline and the Client. Waterline exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence to assess the information acquired during the preparation of this document, but makes no guarantees or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information. The information contained in this document is based upon, and limited by, the circumstances and conditions acknowledged herein, and upon information available at the time of the preparation of this document. Any information provided by others is believed to be accurate but cannot be guaranteed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional services provided to the Client.

Any use, reliance on, or decision made, by a third party based on this document is the sole responsibility of said third party. Waterline makes no representation or warranty to any third party with regard to this document and, or the work referred to in this document, and accepts no duty of care to any third party or any liability or responsibility whatsoever for any losses, expenses, damages, fines, penalties or other harm that may be suffered or incurred as a result of the use of, reliance on, any decision made, or any action taken based on, this document or the work referred to in this document.

When Waterline submits instruments of professional service; including, reports, drawings and project-related deliverables, the Client agrees that only original signed and stamped paper versions shall be considered as original documents. The hard copy versions submitted by Waterline to the Client shall be considered as copies of the original documents, and in the event of a dispute or discrepancy, the signed and stamped original documents retained by Waterline shall govern over all copies, electronic or otherwise, provided to the Client.

This document is intended to be used in its entirety, and no individual part of the document may be taken as representative of the findings of the document. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, by any third party, without the expressed written permission of the Client or Waterline.

TMEP – Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling 2137-14-004 Kinder Morgan Burnaby Tank Farm November 18, 2014 Burnaby, BC Submitted to BGC Engineering Ltd.

FIGURES Figure 1: Well Location Diagram Figure 2: Piper Plot

East t - ive es Dr W rsity

ive nive

Dr U Ã y ² t rsi Terry ve Fox ì1 ni Lane ! ^_ STUDY AREA U Vancouver ! Burnaby SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

! y CAMPUS

RichmondW

n ad n Ro S e us cie t amp nce R n uth C oad e So

Bu rnab y Mou ntain Parkway Aubrey Street U HHM-BH-03 niv er k sit y D rive

t s r u h e in P KINDER MORGAN -

G BURNABY TANK FARM re y G st a on gl e ar D di r W iv a e y

Shellmont Street

Scale: 1:9,000 0 50 100 200 300 Meters k Borehole HHM-BH-03 Location Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N

PROJECT TMEP - Burnaby Mountain Groundwater Sampling Burnaby, BC Submitted to BGC Engineering Inc. TITLE SITE LOCATION

PREPARED BY: Waterline Resources Inc. PROJECT: 2137-14-004 Sources: COMPILED BY: mscott DATE ISSUED: 18/11/2014 Figure 1 Google Earth, 2014 DATE REVISED: